Remove const_in_array_repeat
Fixes#80371. Fixes#81315. Fixes#80767. Fixes#75682.
I thought there might be some issue with `Repeats(_, 0)`, but if you increase the items in the array it still ICEs. I'm not sure if this is the best fix but it does fix the given issue.
2229: Fix issues with move closures and mutability
This PR fixes two issues when feature `capture_disjoint_fields` is used.
1. Can't mutate using a mutable reference
2. Move closures try to move value out through a reference.
To do so, we
1. Compute the mutability of the capture and store it as part of the `CapturedPlace` that is written in TypeckResults
2. Restrict capture precision. Note this is temporary for now, to allow the feature to be used with move closures and ByValue captures and might change depending on discussions with the lang team.
- No Derefs are captured for ByValue captures, since that will result in value behind a reference getting moved.
- No projections are applied to raw pointers since these require unsafe blocks. We capture
them completely.
r? `````@nikomatsakis`````
codegen: assume constants cannot fail to evaluate
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80579 landed, so we can finally remove this old hack from codegen and instead assume that consts never fail to evaluate. :)
r? `@oli-obk`
Stabilize `unsigned_abs`
Resolves#74913.
This PR stabilizes the `i*::unsigned_abs()` method, which returns the absolute value of an integer _as its unsigned equivalent_. This has the advantage that it does not overflow on `i*::MIN`.
I have gone ahead and used this in a couple locations throughout the repository.
When `capture_disjoint_fields` is not enabled, checking if the root variable
binding is mutable would suffice.
However with the feature enabled, the captured place might be mutable
because it dereferences a mutable reference.
This PR computes the mutability of each capture after capture analysis
in rustc_typeck. We store this in `ty::CapturedPlace` and then use
`ty::CapturedPlace::mutability` in mir_build and borrow_check.
Avoid memory allocation when removing dead blocks
Use `reachable_as_bitset` to reuse a bitset from the traversal rather
than allocating it seprately. Additionally check if there are any
unreachable blocks before proceeding.
clean up some const error reporting around promoteds
These are some error reporting simplifications enabled by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80579.
Further simplifications are possible but could be blocked on making `const_err` a hard error.
r? ``````@oli-obk``````
Refractor a few more types to `rustc_type_ir`
In the continuation of #79169, ~~blocked on that PR~~.
This PR:
- moves `IntVarValue`, `FloatVarValue`, `InferTy` (and friends) and `Variance`
- creates the `IntTy`, `UintTy` and `FloatTy` enums in `rustc_type_ir`, based on their `ast` and `chalk_ir` equilavents, and uses them for types in the rest of the compiler.
~~I will split up that commit to make this easier to review and to have a better commit history.~~
EDIT: done, I split the PR in commits of 200-ish lines each
r? `````@nikomatsakis````` cc `````@jackh726`````
Use `reachable_as_bitset` to reuse a bitset from the traversal rather
than allocating it seprately. Additionally check if there are any
unreachable blocks before proceeding.
Prevent query cycles in the MIR inliner
r? `@eddyb` `@wesleywiser`
cc `@rust-lang/wg-mir-opt`
The general design is that we have a new query that is run on the `validated_mir` instead of on the `optimized_mir`. That query is forced before going into the optimization pipeline, so as to not try to read from a stolen MIR.
The query should not be cached cross crate, as you should never call it for items from other crates. By its very design calls into other crates can never cause query cycles.
This is a pessimistic approach to inlining, since we strictly have more calls in the `validated_mir` than we have in `optimized_mir`, but that's not a problem imo.
Add expected error
Add comment
Tweak comment wording
Fix after rebase to updated master
Fix after rebase to updated master
Distinguish mutation in normal and move closures
Tweak error message
Fix error message for nested closures
Refactor code showing mutated upvar in closure
Remove debug assert
B
avoid promoting division, modulo and indexing operations that could fail
For division, `x / y` will still be promoted if `y` is a non-zero integer literal; however, `1/(1+1)` will not be promoted any more.
While at it, also see if we can reject promoting floating-point arithmetic (which are [complicated](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/237) so maybe we should not promote them).
This will need a crater run to see if there's code out there that relies on these things being promoted.
If we can land this, promoteds in `fn`/`const fn` cannot fail to evaluate any more, which should let us do some simplifications in codegen/Miri!
Cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3027
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61821
r? `@oli-obk`
Fix ICE in mir when evaluating SizeOf on unsized type
Not quite ready yet. This tries to fix#80742 as discussed on [Zulip topic][1],
by using `delay_span_bug`.
I don't understand what `delay_span_bug` does. It seems like my error message
is never used. With this patch, in this program:
```rust
#![allow(incomplete_features)]
#![feature(const_evaluatable_checked)]
#![feature(const_generics)]
use std::fmt::Debug;
use std::marker::PhantomData;
use std::mem::size_of;
struct Inline<T>
where
[u8; size_of::<T>() + 1]: ,
{
_phantom: PhantomData<T>,
buf: [u8; size_of::<T>() + 1],
}
impl<T> Inline<T>
where
[u8; size_of::<T>() + 1]: ,
{
pub fn new(val: T) -> Inline<T> {
todo!()
}
}
fn main() {
let dst = Inline::<dyn Debug>::new(0); // line 27
}
```
these errors are printed, both for line 27 (annotated line above):
- "no function or associated item named `new` found for struct `Inline<dyn
Debug>` in the current scope"
- "the size for values of type `dyn Debug` cannot be known at compilation time"
Second error makes sense, but I'm not sure about the first one and why it's
even printed.
Finally, I'm not sure about the span passing in `const_eval`.
[1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/269128-miri/topic/Help.20fixing.20.2380742
Fix `unused_unsafe` label with `unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn
Previously, the following code:
```rust
#![feature(unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn foo() {
unsafe { unsf() }
}
unsafe fn unsf() {}
```
Would give the following warning:
```
warning: unnecessary `unsafe` block
--> src/lib.rs:4:5
|
4 | unsafe { unsf() }
| ^^^^^^ unnecessary `unsafe` block
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_unsafe)]` on by default
```
which doesn't point out that the block is in an `unsafe fn`.
Tracking issue: #71668
cc #79208
Stability oddity with const intrinsics
cc `@RalfJung`
In https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/80699#discussion_r551495670 `@usbalbin` realized we accepted some intrinsics as `const` without a `#[rustc_const_(un)stable]` attribute. I did some digging, and that example works because intrinsics inherit their stability from their parents... including `#[rustc_const_(un)stable]` attributes. While we may want to fix that (not sure, wasn't there just a MCPed PR that caused this on purpose?), we definitely want tests for it, thus this PR adding tests and some fun tracing statements.
